« Despair - and Hope | Main | What We Need to Do - Part II »


task list

Hey there nice improvement!!

It’s difficult to get knowledgeable folks with this matter, and you be understood as you recognize that which you are discussing! Thanks..

David Fryman

Infanticide? Democrats don't opposing murdering children? When did this happen?


David, some do not. I must admit that I am one who thinks that late term partial birth abortion, done without significant need to the mother's health, is infanticide. And yes; some Democrats support this procedure, irrespective of details.

Then there are the "after birth" abortion folks:


David Fryman

Infanticide means killing a child after birth, usually within a year. (I checked Webster's; feel free to check others.) According to Hinderaker, as you quote, "we ought to be able to agree that babies that are born alive shouldn’t be killed." That's not late-term abortion. No need to for a Democrat (at least outside Australia) to "buck his party" to be against killing children. That's absurd.


Yes, most definitions that I saw say that infanticide is the killing of an infant, up to 1 year after birth. (Guess they figure after that point, it's no longer an infant.)


And - surely you are aware that Obama, when he was in the Illinois legislature, voted against a bill that would have protected infants born alive from a botched abortion?

Also. You do not have to be from Australia to be a supporter of "after birth abortion." Peter Singer, a U.S. professor, is another:


David Fryman

Yes, I've read Singer. And I'm sure we can dig up some other crazies too. But as a campaign strategy, I don't get it. Hinderaker seems to think this is some Democratic trend that needs to be "bucked". Are Democrats lining up to kill babies in his world? What in the world is he talking about?


So do you define President Obama as a "crazy"? He's the person who more than once refused to vote in favor of a bill protecting infants born alive.

I will try to help spell it out for you, David. Hinderaker is attempting to give Republicans superior responses to politicians asked about abortion. Frankly - I do not agree with him. I think that the response should be "This is an issue where intelligent people can disagree. Our party respects this, and thus is not going to overturn the law of the land (Roe v Wade). Nevertheless, our party respects life and shall do so whenever possible."

Our government needs to focus on the enormous issues facing us right now. While abortion is an issue very important to some - discussing specific details in campaigns has not been a winner for Republicans.

When some Democrats do support bills that others may think are infanticide, then they should deal with that directly. Otherwise - a low profile is more of a winning position for them.

David Fryman

Are you talking about partial-birth abortion or infanticide? First, I thought Hinderaker was just using an inflammatory term for partial birth abortion. Then he said "come out against infanticide, including partial birth abortion", which implies that infanticide was a broader category that included, among other things, certain abortion procedures.

Just to be clear, infanticide has a clear medical meaning. The infant has to have been born. You're welcome to argue that abortion and infanticide are morally equivalent (although I would disagree). But don't misuse language to make your point.

Also, do you really believe Obama supports infanticide. By all indications, he opposed that legislation because he thought it would infringe on abortion rights. Not because he's pro baby killing.


David, I don't know who you are nor your background, etc. Nevertheless, a great many words and definitions are not 100% clear. Partial birth abortion is the partial delivery of a live fetus through the birth canal. One can definitely argue that the process involves an infant that is being delivered - and then killed. That is not a "misuse of language" - that is judging when exactly is the moment that a fetus is "delivered" and "born alive" versus still being alive, yet within the womb.

As for Obama - frankly, I don't really care what his personal beliefs are. What I care about is how he governs. When he had the chance, he voted against a bill to protect infants born alive.

He uses Roe v Wade as an excuse for his vote. But - as you can see, FactCheck states that his assertion doesn't hold water:


Plenty of other pro-choice politicians voted for this bill. So - one can only surmise that Obama holds the right of a woman to have an abortion at any point in a pregnancy and under many wide reaching circumstances as a higher value than the right of an infant, born of a botched abortion, who nevertheless is still alive.

In any case - I stand by the original point of my post. Small government politicians should be for "small government" in fiscal and personal issues. Of course, that being said, at some point, lines must be drawn.

The comments to this entry are closed.